158. GR. NO.

114129 OCTOBER 24, 1996

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. NLRC
PONENTE: HERMOSISIMA, JR. J:

DOCTRINE: In the case at bar, the service record of private respondent with petitioner is
perpetually characterized by unexplained absences and unauthorized sick leave extensions. The
nature of his job i.e., as a lineman-driver requires his physical presence to minister to incessant
complaints often faulted with electricity. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General:
Habitual absenteeism of an errant employee is not concordant with the public
service that petitioner has not assiduously provide. To have delayed power failure in
a certain district simply because a MERALCO employee assigned to such area was
absent and cannot immediately be replaced is a breach of public service of the highest
order. A deep sense of duty would, therefore, command that private respondent should,
at the very least, limit his absence for justifiable reasons.
Habitual absenteeism should not and cannot be tolerated by petitioner herein which is a public
utility company engaged in the business of distributing and selling electric energy within its
franchise areas and that the maintenance of Meralco’s distribution facilities(electric lines) by
responding to customer’s complaints of power failure, interruptions, line trippings and other line
troubles is of paramount importance to the consuming public.
Hence, an employee’s habitual absenteeism without leave, which violated company rules
and regulations is sufficient cause to justify termination from service.
FACTS: Private respondent Jeremias C. Cortez, Jr. was employed on probationary status
by Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) on September 15, 1975 as lineman driver. Six
months later, he was regularized as a 3rd class lineman-driver assigned at petitioner’s North
Distribution Division. In 1977, and until the time of his dismissal, he worked as 1st class
lineman-driver whose duties and responsibilities among others, includes the maintenance of
MERALCO’s distribution facilities (electric lines) by responding to customer’s complaints of
power failure, interruptions, line trippings and other line troubles.
Characteristic, however, of private respondent’s service with petitioner is his perennial
suspension from work. Due to his numerous infractions, private respondent was administratively
investigated for violation of MERALCO’s Code of Employee Discipline, particularly his
repeated and unabated absence from work without prior notice from his superiors specifically
from August 2 to September 19, 1989.
After such administrative investigation was conducted by petitioner, it concluded that
private respondent was found to have grossly neglected his duties by not attending t his work as
lineman from August 2, 1989 to September 19, 1989 without notice to his superiors.
In a letter dated January 19, 1990, private respondent was notified of the investigation
result and consequent termination of his services effective January 19, 1990.
On March 7, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioner. The LA rendered a decision dismissing the case for lack of merit. Aggrieved with the
LA’s decision, private respondent elevated the case on appeal to public respondent. The NLRC
set aside the decision of the LA and ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent with backwages.
Petitioner filed an MR which was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPOND or willful diENT’S DISMISSAL FROM
SERVICE WAS ILLEGAL
RULING: Art. 283 of the Labor Code enumerate the just cause for termination. Among such
cause are the following.
a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work.
b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties.
xxx xxx xxx

This cause includes gross inefficiency, negligence and carelessness. Such just causes is
derived from the right of the employer to select and engage his employees. For indeed,
regulation of manpower by the company clearly falls within the ambit of management
prerogative. This court had defined a valid exercise of management prerogative as one which
covers: hiring, work assignment, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be
used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of
employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of
workers. Except as provided for, or limited by, special laws, an employer is free to regulate,
according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment.
Moreover, this Court has upheld a company’s management prerogatives so long as they
are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the
purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or
under valid agreements.
The perchant of private respondent to continually incur unauthorized absences and/or a
violation of petitioner’s sick leave policy finally rendered his dismissal as imminently proper.
Private respondent cannot expect compassion from this Court by totally disregarding his
numerous previous infractions and take into consideration only the period covering August 2,
1989 to September 19, 1989. As ruled by this Court in the cases of Mendoza vs. NLRC and
National Service Corporation vs. Leogardo, Jr., it is the totality, not the
compartmentalization, of such company infractions that private respondent had
consistently committed which justified his penalty of dismissal.
In the case at bar, it was established that complainant violated respondent’ Code on
Employee Discipline, not only once, but ten (10) times. On the first occasion, complainant was
simply warned. On the second time, he was suspended for 5 days. With the hope of reforming
the complainant, respondent generously imposed penalties of suspension for his repeated
unauthorized absences and violations of sick leave policy which constitute violations of the
Code. On the ninth time, complainant was already warned that the penalty of dismissal will be
imposed for similar or equally serious violation.
In total disregard of respondent’s warning, complainant, for the tenth time did not report
for work without prior authority from respondent; hence, unauthorized. Worse, in total disregard
of his duties as lineman, he did not report for work from August 1, 1989 to September 19, 1989;
thus, seriously affected respondent’s operations as a public utility. This constitute(s) a violation
of respondent’s Code and gross neglect of duty and serious misconduct under Article 283 of the
Labor Code.

159. GR.NO. 146621 JULY 30, 2004

VALIAO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
PONENTE: QUISUMBING,J:

DOCTRINE: The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the
period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an
erring employee. The offenses committed by him should not be taken singly and separately but
in their totality. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little
cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other.
FACTS: On February 5, 1990, petitioner Rene Valiao was appointed by private respondent
West Negros College (WNC) as Student Affairs Office (SAO) Director, with a starting salary of
P2,800.00 per month. On May 14, 1990,he was assigned as Acting Director, Alumni Affairs
Office.
On July 29, 1990, petitioner was transferred to a staff position and designated as Records
Chief at the Registrar’s Office but was again re-assigned as a typist on June 24, 1991.
The latest reassignment was due to his tardiness and absences, as reflected in the
summary of tardiness and absences report, which showed him to have been absent or late for
work from a minimum of seven (7) to a maximum of seventy-five (75) minutes from a period
March to October 31, 1991, and to have reported late almost every day for the period November
to December 1991.
Copies of his tardiness/ absences reports were furnished petitioner, along with
memoranda requiring him to explain but his explanations were either unacceptable or
unsatisfactory. Subsequent reports also showed that he did not change his habits resulting in
tardiness and absences. He was even caught one time manipulating the bundy clock, thus
necessitating another memorandum to him asking him to explain his dishonest actuations in
accomplishing the daily attendance logbook and in using the bundy clock.
On December 10, 1991, petitioner received a suspension order without pay for fifteen
(15) days effective January 1, 1992 because of dishonesty in reporting his actual attendance.
After serving the suspension, the petitioner reported back to office on January 16, 1992.
On January 15, 1992, another adverse report on tardiness and absences from the Registrar
was made against the petitioner prompting WNC to send him another memorandum with an
attached tardiness and absences report, calling his attention on his tardiness and absences for the
period February to April 1992.
On June 20, 1992, petitioner sent a letter of appeal and explained his side to the new
college president who gave petitioner another chance. The petitioner was then appointed as
Information Assistant effective immediately. However, petititoner did not immediately assume
the post of Information Assistant prompting the President of WNC to call his attention. When the
petitioner finally assumed his post, he was allowed a part-time teaching job in the same school to
augment his income.
Sometime in December 1992, WNC won a case against the officials of the union before
the NLRC. Petitioner was ordered to prepare a media blitz of this victory but the petitioner did
not comply with the order on the ground that such a press release would only worsen the already
aggravated situation and strained relations between WNC management and the union officials.
When petitioner reported for work on the first day of January 1993, he was relieved from
his post and transferred to the College of Liberal Arts as Record Evaluator. However, the Dean
of CLA complaint to the HR Manager about the petitioner’s poor performance and habitual
absenteeism, as shown in the daily absence reports.
On January 18, 1993, petitioner was again absent from work without permission or notice
to his immediate superior. It turned out that he went to Bacolod City and on January 28, 1993,
the petitioner was one of those arrested during a raid in the house of one “Toto Ruiz”, a
suspected drug pusher and was brought to the Bacolod Police Station along with four (4) other
suspects. They were charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Petitioner was asked to explain within 24 hours why he should not be terminated as a
result of the raid and the charges against him for violation of RA 6425 as amended. Petitioner
allegedly was not able to answer immediately since he was in jail and received said
memorandum only on January 30, 1993, although his wife had earlier received the memorandum
on January 28, 1993.
On January 29, 1993, the petitioner was dismissed for failure to answer said
memorandum. On February 1, 1993, the petitioner wrote to the President of WNC explaining his
side and asking for due process. WNC cancelled its Notice of Termination and granted the
petitioner’s request. The petitioner was notified about the grant of his request and that a hearing
would be conducted. He was then placed under preventive suspension and an investigation
committee was organized to conduct the probe. After the investigation conducted, the
investigation committee recommended his dismissal.
On January 19, 1995, petitioner filed a complaint against WNC for illegal suspension,
illegal dismissal, backwages, salary differential for salary increases and other benefits granted
after his dismissal as well as for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The LA rendered a decision directing respondent West Negros College to pay
complainant Rene P. Valiao (a) P3,300.00 as salary for the period of his preventive suspension,
and (b) P330.00 as attorney’s fees, or the total amount of P3,630.00. The LA found no justifiable
reason to place the petitioner under preventive suspension as there was no serious or imminent
threat to the life or property of his employer or coworkers. However, the LA found the dismissal
of the petitioner from WNC to be valid due to absenteeism and tardiness and after he was
accorded the procedural due process aspect of the law as reflected in the records showing that the
petitioner was formally investigated and given the opportunity to refute the alleged findings by
the management of WNC.
 On appeal to the NLRC, the latter affirmed the decision of the LA, sustained the latter’s
findings of facts, and made its own findings on the apprehension of the petitioner for possession
of prohibited drugs.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA but this was
dismissed for lack of merit. The CA held that the petitioner was validly dismissed for serious
misconduct and gross habitual neglect of duties, which was aggravated by his arrest for violation
of RA 6425, as amended and that he was afforded the twin requirements of notice and hearing
and the opportunity to defend himself by the investigating committee.
Petitioner filed an MR but it was denied by the CA.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY DISMISSED
RULING: YES. The SC found that petitioner’s dismissal from employment is valid and
justified.

For an employee’s dismissal to be valid: (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause,
and (b) the employee must be afforded due process.
Serious misconduct and habitual neglect of duties are among the just causes for
terminating an employee under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Gross Negligence connotes
want of care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to
perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The LA’s findings
that petitioner’s habitual absenteeism and tardiness constitute gross and habitual neglect of duties
that justified his termination of employment are sufficiently supported by evidence on record.
Petitioner’s repeated acts of absences without leave and his frequent tardiness reflect his
indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in his work. More importantly, his repeated and
habitual infractions, committed despite several warnings, constitute gross misconduct
unexpected from an employee of petitioner’s stature. This Court held that habitual absenteeism
without leave constitute gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee.
However, petitioner claims that he was dismissed not for his tardiness or absences but for
his arrest as a suspected drug user. His claim, however, is merely speculative. We find such
contention devoid of basis.
Indeed, even without the arrest incident, WNC had more than enough basis for
terminating petitioner from employment. It bears stressing that petitioner’s absences and
tardiness were not isolated incidents but manifested a pattern of habituality. In one case, we held
that where the records clearly show that the employee has not only been charged with the offense
of highgrading but also has been warned 21 times for absences without official leave, these
repeated acts of misconduct and willful breach of trust by an employee justify his dismissal and
forfeiture of his right to security of tenure.

160. Rosario A. Gatus vs. Quality House, Inc. and Christopher Chua
GR No. 156766 Apr 16, 2009 Brion, J.
Doctrine: Beyond providing mere motivation, petitioner was even at the scene of the attack and
actively prodded her husband to continue with the attack. This is a form of participation no less
that led the CA to conclude that -

The mauling incident that resulted from the prodding of private respondent shows her to be unfit
to continue working for her employer. Her admitted grievances translated into the concrete act of
violence performed against her supervisor who represented her employer. Undoubtedly, her
continued employment would cause undue strain in the workplace. Taken lightly, the incident
would inspire the breakdown of respect and discipline among the workforce.

That the petitioner's transgression merits the penalty of dismissal is fully supported by our past
rulings.30It is, at the very least, a serious misconduct of a grave and aggravated character that
directly violated the personal security of another employee due to an employment-related cause.
Thus, the disciplinary measure imposed is not a matter where the company and we should tread
carefully and show administrative leniency.

Facts: Petitioner Rosario A. Gatus started her employment as an assembler with respondent
Quality House, Inc. on July 14, 1987. The respondent company placed her under preventive
suspension on July 1, 1997, through a notice, because of the incident that occurred on 30 June
1997 involving petioner’s husband, Ferdinand Gatus, and co-employee, Leonilo Echavez.

Petitioner submitted her explanation in response to the respondent company, providing that she
was experiencing difficulties in her work, caused by her co-employees Shelly, Rene and Nilo
Echavez, due to her trade union activities. She claimed that she was being harassed by the three,
especially Nilo Echavez, because she did not join the Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU). She narrated that the harassment and humiliation persisted to the point of
becoming unbearable; she was left with no recourse but to tell her husband about her workplace
problems. This made her husband mad.

Petiotioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension and damages against and subsequently after
her dismissal, charges of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, with claims for moral and
exemplary damages. The respondents' Reply narrated the infractions the petitioner committed
during her employment that showed her continuing poor work attitude, and for which she
received the penalties of reprimand and two suspensions.

Labor Arbiter Potenciano S. Cañizares, Jr. dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The arbiter
found no substantial evidence that showed that the respondents committed unfair labor practice,
and that her dismissal was for a just cause under the Labor Code. The NLRC affirmed the labor
arbiter's ruling.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner's termination from employment is valid.

Ruling: Yes, petioner’s termination from employment is valid. The CA correctly reversed the
NLRC.

Beyond providing mere motivation, petitioner was even at the scene of the attack and actively
prodded her husband to continue with the attack. This is a form of participation shows her to be
unfit to continue working for her employer. Her admitted grievances translated into the concrete
act of violence performed against her supervisor, who represented her employer. Undoubtedly,
her continued employment would cause undue strain in the workplace. The petitioner's
transgression merits the penalty of dismissal. It is, at the very least, a serious misconduct of a
grave and aggravated character that directly violated the personal security of another employee
due to an employment-related cause.

It is undisputed that private respondent's act of instigating her husband to inflict more violence
("Sige pa! Sige pa!") on her supervisor enraged and emboldened him. The incident was work-
related having been brought about by respondent's constant complaints about perceived
discrimination against her in the workplace. The fact that her husband, who was not an employee
of the corporation, came to the waiting shed at the precise time that the unsuspecting supervisor
Echavez was in the waiting shed supported Arbiter Caňizares' finding that the husband
purposely went to the company's premises to confront the supervisor and thereafter to maul the
latter.

The petitioner tried to downplay her involvement in the incident of June 30, 1997 with her denial
that she urged her husband to continue hitting Echavez. She contended that she could not have
uttered the exhortatory remarks "sige pa, sige pa" at the moment her husband was attacking
Echavez, because Echavez himself did not mention it in his affidavit before the Prosecutor's
Office. Echavez, however, referred to the petitioner's presence and participation in the Incident
Report he filed with the respondent company.28 He was corroborated on this point by two of the
petitioner's co-employees, Nelia Burabo and Reynaldo Padayao, who witnessed the
incident.29 Significantly, the petitioner had nothing to say about the corroborating statements of
Burabo and Padayao.

Under these facts, Ferdinand Gatus would not have acted as he did in the afternoon of June 30,
1997 had petitioner not worked him up into a sufficiently irate mood that led to the attack. In
effect, petitioner pushed her husband to get back at Echavez for what the latter had done to her at
the workplace.

161. G.R. No. 102023 November 6, 1992

RAMON M. ABIERA, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
PLANTERS BANK

Doctrine: As branch manager, violated RPB's Code of Discipline through numerous transactions
he entered into or approved that caused detriment to the bank and its clients. The charges were
either expressly admitted by him or established by preponderant evidence. His conduct caused
the private respondent to lose confidence in his judgment and even his integrity and provided the
just cause for his dismissal as branch manager.
Facts: Petitioner Ramon Abiera was the Manager of the Roxas City branch of private respondent
Republic Planters Bank (RPB) at the time of his dismissal on April 28, 1987, on the ground of
loss of confidence.

The said branch had earlier been the subject of an audit by the internal auditors of RPB's head
office. Sometime thereafter, in August 1986, Abiera applied for vacation leave for about two
weeks "to take a much needed rest."

Upon his return, the petitioner received a memorandum from the Executive Vice President of the
respondent bank requiring him to submit his response to the internal audit report. The report
suggested his possible participation in the violation therein noted.

He was not allowed in the meantime to resume his position. Instead, RPB extended his leave of
absence from September 12, 1986 to October 12, 1986, then to November 12, 1986, and finally
to December 12, 1986.

After submitting his response to the audit examination report, Abiera received a memorandum
containing the following Specification of Charges which he was required to explain:

1. Over-financing in the amount of P2,573,000.00.

2. Approval of loan advances to a certain Manuel Alparanque in violation of

RPB's policy prohibiting the grant of new loans to clients with past due accounts.

3. Continuous loan approval/releases to the spouses Rebecca/Edmund Ibañez

despite full knowledge of the defect of their title to the mortgaged properties.

4. Entering into a contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Bank in

the repair of the ceiling/mezzanine floor of its Roxas branch.

5. Insuring in excess of the market value of mortgaged collaterals and properties

not offered as collaterals without advising the planter-borrowers concerned.

6. Advancing the payment of insurance premiums without prior clearance and

approval from management and in gross violation of RPB's existing policy on the
matter.

7. Violation of the Bank's domestic travel policy.

These acts were claimed to have been committed by the petitioner in violation of the following
sections of RPB's Code of Discipline:

Sec. 2. — Entering in behalf of the Bank into any contract or transaction

manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the officer or
employee profited or will profit thereby.
 Sec. 12. — Serious violation of any established loan policy, office
procedure/practice of the Bank with or without loss or damage to the Bank.

On January 12, 1987, the petitioner was notified of his preventive suspension for thirty days
without pay. He formally protested, averring that the "preliminary hearing" was procedurally
defective for the following reasons:

1. Thinking that the hearing was merely a fact-finding exercise preliminary to an

administrative hearing, he did not bring along legal counsel. Such hearing
proceeded without providing him with any legal assistance.

2. The composition of the Committee and the role of its members in the hearing
were not made known to him.

3. The hearing was held without benefit of a formal reply from him, and the
auditors who prepared the report on which the charges were based did not swear
to the truth of their report.

4. The hearing was inquisitorial in nature and he was not given a chance to
constructively present his side.

5. He was not allowed to hear and confront the witnesses against him and to
present his own evidence.

6. The evidence on which the auditors based their findings and conclusions was
not explained.

Still protesting his innocence, the petitioner demanded withdrawal of the notification but RPB
refused. Abiera then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the private respondent. After
considering the evidence submitted by both parties, Labor Arbiter Ma. Sol Monteclaro-Manalo
found for him and ordered his reinstatement with back wages.

Issue: Whether the termination is valid.

Ruling: Regarding the ground for his dismissal, we find that the NLRC correctly sustained the
Investigating Committee in concluding that the petitioner, as branch manager, violated RPB's
Code of Discipline through numerous transactions he entered into or approved that caused
detriment to the bank and its clients. The charges were either expressly admitted by him or
established by preponderant evidence. His conduct caused the private respondent to lose
confidence in his judgment and even his integrity and provided the just cause for his dismissal as
branch manager. Article 282(c) of the Labor Code plainly
states:

Art. 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an

employment for any of the following causes:
 xxx xxx xxx

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in

him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

It is clear that the public respondent has committed no grave abuse of discretion that would
warrant the reversal of its decision sustaining the petitioner's dismissal. There was justified loss
of confidence in him by the respondent bank. In view of the nature of its business, the bank had
every reason to demand that the conduct of the petitioner, who was holding a sensitive and
responsible position, be entirely above-board and fully deserving of its trust.